[lbo-talk] Fact-checking Anonymous Sources?

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Thu Apr 13 10:47:19 PDT 2006


Chuck wrote: "This seems like a weird and picky distinction, but I think what gives credibility to Hersh is exactly this expose, that says in effect, this is what is happening behind the scenes. (And I believe it, mainly because I trust Hersh.)"

Well, if Hersh didn't have credibility, there would be no point in feeding leaks to him. He's credible, he can get almost anything published, and he is guaranteed wide attention far beyond the initial venue of publication. Perfect for leaks.

Andy quotes Hersh: "Bush doesn't talk to people he's mad at" (at <http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254>).

Actually, late last year, Washington sought to talk with Tehran about Iraq but got reportedly rebuffed: "The approach changed late last year as American officials grew concerned about possible Iranian involvement in helping insurgents plant roadside bombs aimed at American troops, and Khalilzad was authorized to engage with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad. Somewhat to American embarrassment, Iran rebuffed that initiative and the administration has thus sought to play down the possibility of anything significant coming from new talks" (Associated Press, "Rice Is Cautious on Talks with Iran," New York Times, 17 March 2006, <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/iran.php>).

All the pressures on the nuclear issue appear to have changed Tehran's mind, and it offered to talk with Washington about Iraq. And Condi Rice in response: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cautioned Friday that while the first planned talks between U.S. and Iranian envoys in nearly three years could be 'useful,' they would be limited to discussions on Iraqi security and not other American concerns with Iran. . . . 'This isn't a negotiation of some kind," Rice said in Sydney at a news conference with Prime Minister John Howard" (Associated Press, "Rice Is Cautious on Talks with Iran," New York Times, 17 March 2006, <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/iran.php>). I take it that the denial means the negotiation is indeed going on. I'm not sure exactly what Tehran can do for Washington in Iraq, but evidently both sides believe that Tehran can make things easy or difficult for Washington in Iraq.

-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list